TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS."

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12592, 7 September 1906, Page 5

TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS."

Sir, —Kindly permit met© refute a few more fallacies which adorn the lengthy parochial epistle of your Lyttelfronian correspondent, Mr Colin Cook. Hβ says one of the most important pointe is," "Will the Canal pay?" And he evidently imagines a fine "bogey' _ is created by drawing the Timaru nerring across the Christchurch scent. But what after all does this Port Timaru "scare" amount to? 'Just this: That if it resulted in a loss of even 25 per cent, of our country shipping -trade outwards, that fact should not debar tho Canal scheme from being discussed fairly and squarely on its merits as affecting tho commercial interests of the central and northern farming communities of this province. Your correspondent lias surely very poor confidenco in tho agricultural and pastoral resources of North Canterbury. With tho gradual subdivision of largo estates, and the resumption by the Government of extensive areas For closer settlement, will there not be much greater expansion of our outward shipping trade in the future, than in the past twenty-five years ? Indeed. I consider that this* country is only just beginning to realise tho incalculable wealth it possesses by the thorough scientific cultivation of its rural areas. Then what about your correspondent's reference to the Midland Railway? Is that expensive line going to frighten us in, twent3'-five years' time. Not much. Surely the town and country enterprise of "this district will by that period have go developed its industrial and agricultural wealth a:? to absoluteliy need both tho Wcfcb Coast line and the Christchurch canal in order to materially assist its development. I fully believe that during the next twentyfive years, if epared, I shall, through tho agency of improved electrical power, yet see prosperity far transcending all former conceptions. In any case, water carriage will ever be cheaper than railage the world over. That ie why the Dunedin, citizens prefer their imports being landed at Dujiedin rather than at Port Chalmers. That ia why Dunedin, merchants can underquote I Christchuroh traders at Timaru in i n:.a?iy lines. That is why Wellington I firms can qrjpte cheaper in this city for certain goods than our own people can. The same reason prompted Kaiapoi enterprise to combine to encourage email sailing and steaming traffic npon ! the Waimakariri. Even wideawake New Brighton people use the Avon to get their coal and timber landed ! cheaper than via Lyttelton's little pet railway. Hence, cheaper goods, every time. As for the Midland Railway competition, suggested by Mr Cook. 1 venture to predict that, owing to the

costly maintenance and working of that line, especially the high of it, the merchants of both;Juytt«lton and this city will find it mor<? profits able to deal -with the West Coast, via Cook Strait.

Mr Cook says "all the estimates ns to just when the canal would not or would be a paying concern, have been based on the assumption that every ton of cargo .now traversing the Lyttelton tunnel would, upon the completion of the canal, be diverted thereto. ,. Nothing of the sort. The engineer, when submitting h» report, did not consider it needful to discuss the various sources cf revenue, but he simply bated his estimates upon the averages respectively for the past eleven and twenty-three years: and I submit thnt it is possible for any body of ehrewd. calculating, commercial men to sup-pcx-e that the basis of the present tonnage traversing the tunnel will be avrilablo ten years heneo. By past cxpeiience. the revenue- therefrom should (despite Timaru rivalry), by the next decade, show an increase of at least 10 per cent.—Yours, etc.. ADVANCE NORTH CANTERBURY. August 28th. - • TO THE EDITOR OF " THE ITtESS." | Sir, —First let mc thank you for your goodness in inserting my last letter on this subject, a reply to which you print in to-days isMie over the pseudonym of "Advance North Canterbury." My anonymous friend charges mc with want of logic and disingenuousnesß, and I am compelled to put. myself under further obligations to you ,in dealing with him . I have no desire to emulato him in tho choice of such epithets as "ludicrous purblind prejudices," "parochially cooked Lyttelton bill-of-fare," and such like. I can well afford, too, to let him have his jibe at 'nervous tradespeople of Lyttelton," for seeing that he L> compelled to hide his light under a norn de plume, one is loft only to speculate on his interest in the matter. He seems to be perfectly satisfied to content himself by proving that as certain arguments originated in Lyttolton ipso facto, they count for nothing. It is the 20th century-old contention that no good can come out of Nazareth, and it is no more convincing. But why is it that, when the people of Lyttelton oppose the canal, they are nnrrovv-minded and parochial, and possessed of "ludicrous, purblind prejudices," yet when certain residents in Christchurch advocate shifting tho port to their back gardens, at an expenditure of 2 to 4 millions of public money they, the Ghristchurch advocates, at once become broad-minded-public-spirited, "adVajioe.North-Canter-bury"-type of benefactors? Let us proceed to eeo how your correspondent "revolutionises" what he is plenised to call my "parochially cooked Lyttelton bill-of-fare." In dealing with the matter of the area set aside by the early pioneer,' for a canal reserve, and the area, required for the present proposal, he has entirely failed to grasp the point, which was that, either the pioneer did not eontempla-to a ship canal, or if he did, then ho was not entitled, in this respect, to tho encomium of '•far seeing." I was not sufficiently insane to arguo that we were hound by the decision of the pioneer in this or any other matter, co your correspondent's picturesque phrases "What beautifftl logic" and "Exit fallacy, number one" aro quite lost on mc. I do not intend following my friend through the whole length of his laboured effort. Ho has not touched 'a single crucial poiint in my argument. "Supposition two,-' , "Poinit three," and "Now. what are the facts?" are his heading in this deadly onslaught. The first-named deala with the. railway truck question; he shows to his entire satisfaction: that we cam. never hope to have sufficient trucks to cope with the business, and his remedy is, < forsooth, to build/ a, canal costing from two to four millions! Did you ever know of a steam hammer being employed to crack a filbert ? * In "Point three" again Jie deliberately misrepresents mo, and yet in the same breath talks of my disingenuousness. "But let that pass," for the paragraph commencing "Now, what are the facts?" is certainly the masiterpiece. Here, after havimg taken mc to task for comparing "maximum" with "average," he proceeds to quote a condition of things which was regarded by your popular contemporary, "The Weekly Press," aa sufficiently rare and novel to warrant it in publishing the illustration of a record days' shipping at Lyttelton, and then says "And despite the fact that one ocean, tramp occupies as much wharfage as three vessels of 23 years ago." Precisely so; ami your correspondent might have added "is dispatched in a tenth of the time, taking more than double the combined cargoes of the three sailers." That's the crucial point, viz., that the altered conditions in. size of veesejfi and' method of doing business have affected the whole question v of berthago, and that |c the point I made i<n my last letter! Your correspondent has not touched it. , Let mc give him a f points for hie next. I said Timaru is now, and would continue to be, a worthy rival to Lyttelton, for the trade of/ the area within its zone which has hitherto gone through Lyttelton. Cam ho refute that? I said that the West Coast railway would draw another portion of»oiir present sea-born© trade. Does he deny it? I asked how much, the Canterbury consumer was likely to benefit, even supposing that the maximum savi«g of 2s per ton was effected on imports. Can he tell mc? I stated , that if anything at all was to he saved, in tho transit of goods, it could not iaffect% the exports from Ncirth Canterbury. Will he disprove that? I sought to show that the country districts would hafve to find over 40s as against every 20e contributed by the city and boroughs in paying the in* on the cost. Will your correspondent join issue with mc here? Finally, I hinted that as all the estimates, as to when the canal would or would not bo financial, were based j>n the transfer of the whole of the imports and exports to the proposed new port, the important factor of Lyttelton <as a competitor had not been reckoned with. Will your correspondent deal with thia "fallacy" I await his effort, end then may, with your permission, servo up a few more points.

My friend concludes with a jibe at what he cm 11s the anti-canal inspired efforts of Lyttclton's representative to get the vail charges reducod, and tho paragraph contains evidence of more than a veiled desire for the non-success of those "anti-canal efforts," from which, methinks, that even your oorrespoudent's very nom-de-plume is a misnomer. What he ehould have used was "Advance North Canterbury by means of tho canal, or failing that, stand ■still." Now, I claim, so- far, to have, loft my friend without a leg to stand upon, figuratively speaking he is floundering on the broad of his back amid, the quick sands of his back garden, just where, no doubt, he would like to eeo tho canal pass. Ho made tho rather common blunder of attempting to advance along an erroneous, if not quite impossible, track. If he can show that the canal •will reduce the cost on imports and exports to an extent sufficient to make the scheme financial, he of a nom-do-j>lume, bur, vested interest notu»iii.-ii..ji_ing, wt.i Iμvo couveit-cd mc to his viewp.—Yours, etc., rnUN COOK, Lyttelton. Augnst 30th. f\Ve slial! have to close this correspondence unless the writers can condense their arguments into smaller space.—Ed.]